Gag: When comparing the effectiveness of running no more than 2:15 to a longer distance run, say a 20 miler, did the reading refer other variables in the, French style of traning?
The variables that spring to mind in any training program are: frequency, intensity and duration. I think that it is safe to argue that the long the distance run the greater the recovery time required. Recovery time would be the duration of time required to overcome any residual effects from previous one
as measured by effort and heart rate
Nominally speaking, running a series of 20 mile runs provides more benefit than mid 20km run. However, in the greater context, the cost of the 20 mile run would be that an additional speed workout that would have been utilised in the form of a recovery day. One could also argue that running longer distance predisposes the runner to injury.
20 mile runs are long slow distance (lsd) runs and in order to record fast times in marathon races, speed work is key. I do not run 3 hour long runs because I like to, I run them because I'm too slow.
In the end, assuming that the runner is running the same volume, my preference is to change the allocation to run more mid 20km distances, and use the time savings from the shortened recovery time to focus on speed work. Running marathons is more than just an exercise in slow twitch muscles.
Any thoughts?
I'm off to Hamilton this weekend for the Around the Bay race. It should be quite an exciting event, It is sold out and it will be interesting running with the other 5200 runners.
Have a good weekend.
TB
Search Cool Running Community
Facebook
MySpace
YouTube
Twitter
